> > On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 12:37, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > > sub 2. The work must not be changed or made available to the public > > > in a way or in a context that violates the author's literary or > > > artistic reputation or character.
> * Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030501 12:56]: > > So, I assume that if a work which has artistic or literary value is > > licensed under the GPL, version 2, people living outside common-law > > countries can't modify and distribute because of: > > 7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously > > your obligations under this License and any other pertinent > > obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the > > Program at all. On Thu, 1 May 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > I cannot see the problem here. Even if the quoted "sub 2" can be > applied, it may only disallow you making something available to > the public (i.e. some forms of distributing it). It says "changed _OR_ made available to the public". This restricts private modifications as well. But even without that, the restriction on "made available to the public ... in a context that violates the author's literary or artistic reputation or character" is enough to prevent any distribution under the GPL. > The quoted "point 7" would only apply, if one wasn't allowed to > distribute copies with source and allowing the receiver everything > allowed by GPL. (As this are the mentioned obligations mentioned in > the GPL). Under droit d'auteur, you're not allowed to grant unqualified permission to the reciever of a work to make modifications or to distribute the work. You cannot fulfil the GPL requirements, so you cannot distribute the work. > > /me wonders if there are more countries besides his own that need to be > > no longer considered part of the free world. :-D > > Even extreme legislations for author's rights does not reduce the ability > to create free software (though those rights might only performed in > other countries), as long as law does not demand, that people have to > encode laws in contracts they make. This I heartily agree with. A work created in a droit d'auteur location and released under the GPL is freely distributable and modifiable in a common-law jurisdiction. It may be undistributable at all in it's home country, though. It's a very strong reason for NOT accepting a license which attempts to enforce these rights under common-law copyright. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>